I don't know if he was the absolute hardest puncher but he was definitely up there, somewhere in the top 5 perhaps. He had a right hand that could take your head off and not too many fighters possessed that type of power.
Tyson is probably right. Tommy could hit so hard that the bones in his hand often didn't hold up. The knockouts of Duran and Shuler were spectacular. And Hearns had many more like that. I do think leverage has something to do with it, though. I think that's true for Arguello, as well. His right hand was devastating, and he threw a wicked hook. Look at his form. Perfect leverage. I think the importance of leverage is especially evident in the case of Joe Louis, who threw his money shots with maximum leverage. Louis was so leverage conscious that it compromised his defensive movement. Other fighters don't depend so much on leverage at they do on speed. I think this was especially true of Tyson. In his prime, his speed was dazzling and the shots shocked fighters. They were'nt the kind of punches that do long term damage, but left a fighter in a position where Tyson could overwhelm him after rising. Of course, Tyson had some help from referees who stopped fights too quickly (the Carl Williams fight is a good example of a ref reading too much into Tyson's power). Then there are fighters who don't depend on leverage or speed but have natural punching power. The obvious example is George Foreman. Foreman was off balance a lot and it didn't seem many of his shots had any kind of leverag behind them, but they the results were devastating. I find power an interesting subject, especially that other type of power that is often neglected, namely the type of power that don't knock opponents down but damages them. Julio Chavez is the perfect fighter to illustrate this type of power. Watching what happened to his opponent over the course of a fight it looked like he had cement in his gloves. Taylor, Camacho, and Rosario looked like they had been in a mugging. It looked like the result of a fight with older style gloves. Duran had power like that, too. That type of power is worse on a boxer than one-punch power.
I don't know, the problem with Foster for me was his complete inability not only to carry his power up to HW, but pretty much any of his effectiveness in general. Makes it difficult for me to rate his P4P power or ability, though there's no doubt he was an absolutely pulverising puncher at LHW.
Foster was stopped by the only two truly great hw's he ever fought - Ali and Frazier. Hearns was stopped by the only truly great naturally bigger man he ever fought - Hagler. Had Hearns fought 2 truly great naturally bigger fighters (Monzon?), he would most likely have had the same fortunes as Foster. Foster lost to guys like Folley and Terrell when he was at a significant weight disadvantage (I think 20-30lbs), Hearns lost twice to Iran Barkley when they were the same weight even though that was higher than Tommy's favourite weight. Don't get me wrong, Hearns was far more effective above his prime weight, but it's a lot harder for a lhw to overcome a 20-30lbs weight disadvantage than it is for a 6ft 1in natural lmw to compete at mw/smw. Both had their vulnerabilities and I think if we focus purely on power at their best weight, I think Foster has the edge.
I think its definitely harder to be fair to Bob in these p4p discussions because when he had to fight outside his own weight it was a massive jump to a division with no weight limit. So you really have to judge him on his work in his own division. At his own weight he is one of the hardest punchers I have ever seen no doubt about it. As is Hearns in the 147-154 range that suited him well for that matter.
Fair enough. Would you give Foster the edge based on who he beat or how he beat them and how devastating his punches appeared?
You'd probably have to say Julian Jackson. If not, I'd say either Hearns or Arguello, power punching with their full arsenal but mainly with the right, both devastating punchers.
